Conquer Club

who was the greatest american president

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Who was the greatest American president?

 
Total votes : 0

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby InkL0sed on Mon May 18, 2009 2:49 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:
muy_thaiguy wrote:My computer is having a few problems right now, but I believe Andrew Jackson (not to say that he wasn't a racist bastard) was the one who helped make it so that people other than landowners could vote, as well as soundly winning the Battle of New Orleans.


The right to vote is kinda a big deal I guess.
But the Battle of New Orleans? I can't say it wasn't important... but then again, I can't say how important it was.


If we hadn't won the Battle of New Orleans, the British might have won the war of 1812... it was a turning point in that war.

But I really don't think his actions as a general apply to whether he was a good president.
User avatar
Lieutenant InkL0sed
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:06 pm
Location: underwater

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon May 18, 2009 2:50 pm

Are you trolling me???
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby Frigidus on Mon May 18, 2009 2:51 pm

InkL0sed wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:
muy_thaiguy wrote:My computer is having a few problems right now, but I believe Andrew Jackson (not to say that he wasn't a racist bastard) was the one who helped make it so that people other than landowners could vote, as well as soundly winning the Battle of New Orleans.


The right to vote is kinda a big deal I guess.
But the Battle of New Orleans? I can't say it wasn't important... but then again, I can't say how important it was.


If we hadn't won the Battle of New Orleans, the British might have won the war of 1812... it was a turning point in that war.

But I really don't think his actions as a general apply to whether he was a good president.


Actually, the Battle of New Orleans occurred after the end of the war, news just didn't reach either side in time. That said, it was people like Jackson that ensured at least a draw in the War of 1812, the government sure as hell didn't have a handle on it.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby InkL0sed on Mon May 18, 2009 2:52 pm

I thought I might have been wrong... we never learned military history :?
User avatar
Lieutenant InkL0sed
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:06 pm
Location: underwater

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby Frigidus on Mon May 18, 2009 2:55 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:Are you trolling me???


For once, no. I see horrendous casualties on both sides, and that's what matters for me. Jackson was a racist turd, sure. He should be tried for genocide posthumously. That doesn't mean I see Truman as any better. He hit thousands of innocent civilians with WMDs, I'm not going to say "well, he could have done worse". He was a war criminal.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby Frigidus on Mon May 18, 2009 2:56 pm

InkL0sed wrote:I thought I might have been wrong... we never learned military history :?


Well, you can hardly blame us. The War of 1812 was a disaster, with that one battle being a high note. We could have very well been retaken by the British, all to prove how big our dicks were.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby thegreekdog on Mon May 18, 2009 3:00 pm

Frigidus wrote:For once, no. I see horrendous casualties on both sides, and that's what matters for me. Jackson was a racist turd, sure. He should be tried for genocide posthumously. That doesn't mean I see Truman as any better. He hit thousands of innocent civilians with WMDs, I'm not going to say "well, he could have done worse". He was a war criminal.


If we're going to try Truman, we might as well try (in no particular order) all of the Americans, Japanese, Germans, British, French, Russians, Greeks, Italians, African colonists, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, and Chinese. Basically, anyone that killed any civilians or bombed any civilian targets. Why limit it to Truman?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby Frigidus on Mon May 18, 2009 3:08 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Frigidus wrote:For once, no. I see horrendous casualties on both sides, and that's what matters for me. Jackson was a racist turd, sure. He should be tried for genocide posthumously. That doesn't mean I see Truman as any better. He hit thousands of innocent civilians with WMDs, I'm not going to say "well, he could have done worse". He was a war criminal.


If we're going to try Truman, we might as well try (in no particular order) all of the Americans, Japanese, Germans, British, French, Russians, Greeks, Italians, African colonists, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, and Chinese. Basically, anyone that killed any civilians or bombed any civilian targets. Why limit it to Truman?


He targeted civilians. That's the key. A war may be between two countries, but that doesn't mean every person in that country is fair game. That's the difference between soldiers and terrorists.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby thegreekdog on Mon May 18, 2009 3:09 pm

Frigidus wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Frigidus wrote:For once, no. I see horrendous casualties on both sides, and that's what matters for me. Jackson was a racist turd, sure. He should be tried for genocide posthumously. That doesn't mean I see Truman as any better. He hit thousands of innocent civilians with WMDs, I'm not going to say "well, he could have done worse". He was a war criminal.


If we're going to try Truman, we might as well try (in no particular order) all of the Americans, Japanese, Germans, British, French, Russians, Greeks, Italians, African colonists, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, and Chinese. Basically, anyone that killed any civilians or bombed any civilian targets. Why limit it to Truman?


He targeted civilians. That's the key. A war may be between two countries, but that doesn't mean every person in that country is fair game. That's the difference between soldiers and terrorists.


Okay, I agree. But, those countries I mentioned all targeted civilians too.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby Frigidus on Mon May 18, 2009 3:13 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Frigidus wrote:For once, no. I see horrendous casualties on both sides, and that's what matters for me. Jackson was a racist turd, sure. He should be tried for genocide posthumously. That doesn't mean I see Truman as any better. He hit thousands of innocent civilians with WMDs, I'm not going to say "well, he could have done worse". He was a war criminal.


If we're going to try Truman, we might as well try (in no particular order) all of the Americans, Japanese, Germans, British, French, Russians, Greeks, Italians, African colonists, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, and Chinese. Basically, anyone that killed any civilians or bombed any civilian targets. Why limit it to Truman?


He targeted civilians. That's the key. A war may be between two countries, but that doesn't mean every person in that country is fair game. That's the difference between soldiers and terrorists.


Okay, I agree. But, those countries I mentioned all targeted civilians too.


If there were instances in which civilians were targeted by all of those countries then each has their share of criminals.

Just to clarify though, there is a world's difference between a grenade taking a bad bounce or a missile killing someone standing outside a military facility and destroying an entire city.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby notyou2 on Mon May 18, 2009 3:15 pm

No, that is the difference between war before WWII and Total War. The nazis did it first with V1 and V2 bombs.
User avatar
Captain notyou2
 
Posts: 6447
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Location: In the here and now

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby thegreekdog on Mon May 18, 2009 3:17 pm

Frigidus wrote:Just to clarify though, there is a world's difference between a grenade taking a bad bounce or a missile killing someone standing outside a military facility and destroying an entire city.


What about fire bombing an industrial city in Germany?
What about killing German families in retribution for the invasion of the Soviet Union or France or Greece?

Furthermore, is there any justification for killing civilians in war time? Say, for example, saving the lives of 200,000 soldiers? What if you were one of those soldiers? What if you were a relative of one of those soldiers?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby neanderpaul14 on Mon May 18, 2009 3:27 pm

Frigidus wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Frigidus wrote:For once, no. I see horrendous casualties on both sides, and that's what matters for me. Jackson was a racist turd, sure. He should be tried for genocide posthumously. That doesn't mean I see Truman as any better. He hit thousands of innocent civilians with WMDs, I'm not going to say "well, he could have done worse". He was a war criminal.


If we're going to try Truman, we might as well try (in no particular order) all of the Americans, Japanese, Germans, British, French, Russians, Greeks, Italians, African colonists, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, and Chinese. Basically, anyone that killed any civilians or bombed any civilian targets. Why limit it to Truman?


He targeted civilians. That's the key. A war may be between two countries, but that doesn't mean every person in that country is fair game. That's the difference between soldiers and terrorists.


FDR targeted civilian population centers. By the time Truman took office civilian populations were considered fair game. German and Japanese cities had already been fire-bombed into oblivion. If you are considering Truman a war criminal for Hiroshima and Nagasaki then you must consider FDR and Churchill war criminals as well.
Image
High score: 2724
/#163 on scoreboard/COLONEL
User avatar
Cook neanderpaul14
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: "Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy if possible." - Thomas J. Jackson

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon May 18, 2009 3:32 pm

InkL0sed wrote:If we hadn't won the Battle of New Orleans, the British might have won the war of 1812... it was a turning point in that war.

The Battle was after the war actually ended. Poor communication back in the day.
The only thing it did was really drive home the message to the British that
A) their tactics needed some work
B) America would never be a part of the Empire again

So while the battle wasn't that important at all, it still kinda was....

Frigidus wrote:That said, it was people like Jackson that ensured at least a draw in the War of 1812, the government sure as hell didn't have a handle on it

I'll give you that.... but it's not enough to make him nearly the best.

Frigidus wrote:You're right, Truman knew that his actions would result in the deaths of thousands,

Trumans "actions" saved the lives of millions soldiers and civilians! Millions! And finally ended the bloodiest conflict ever! There was no agreement or treaty prohibiting atomics, and he even warned the Japs that it was coming both times. Not to point fingers-but it was the Japanese that started killing civilians (taking it so far as to have slaves and sex slaves) long before the Americans. And something that people don't pay attention to is that 41,000 more people died in the Tokyo fire bombing than in Nagasaki (which I know isn't argueing with your point).
HOWEVER, and In fact: the Tokyo Rose hinted that they had already known about the bomb before it was dropped. She said something like "we know that you are coming little plane, and we know what special device you have. We are waiting to shoot you down."

Jackson's actions had nothing to do with saving lives. It was all about power.
Jackson=Genocide

Frigidus wrote:He hit thousands of innocent civilians with WMDs, I'm not going to say "well, he could have done worse". He was a war criminal.

Hiroshima was called "the city of soldiers." They were stationed there because the US didn't bomb it. And a civilian population which supports, and prolonges war cannot be called innocent.

Read this, it'll shed light on what I am trying to say about Truman.

It was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, on Aug. 6, 1945. The explosion, which had the force of more than 15,000 tons of TNT, instantly and completely devastated 10 square kilometers of the heart of this city of 343,000 inhabitants. Of this number, 66,000 were killed immediately and 69,000 were injured, more than 67 percent of the city's structures were destroyed or damaged. The next atomic bomb to be exploded was of the plutonium type, it was dropped on Nagasaki three days later, producing a blast equal to 21,000 tons of TNT. The terrain and smaller size of Nagasaki reduced destruction of life and property, but nevertheless 39,000 people were killed and 25,000 injured, while 40 percent of the city's structures were destroyed or seriously damaged. Preceding the bombing of Hiroshima the Americans had pledged that if the Japanese did not agree to an unconditional surrender and an immediate conclusion to all hostilities that they would bomb Japan with atomic weapons. The Japanese called the Americans on a bluff or simply dismissed the American's words as tough talk and nothing more, unfortunately for the Japanese, the Americans did have the weapons they claimed they did, and weren't afraid to use them. Hiroshima was destroyed, though a catastrophe for the Japanese, it still did not mean their surrender. The Japanese, urged by their military establishment to continue the pursuit of victory still did not respond to the American threat. It took the Japanese another lost city in Nagasaki three days later to commence peace negotiations. It was too late for over 100,000 people by the time the treaty was signed aboard the American Battleship U.S. Missouri on September.2nd 1945. Japan had in essence, been defeated months before the bomb was dropped, the problem no longer existed to defeat Japan, but to secure her surrender- a far more difficult task. Quite simply, the Japanese did not believe in surrender. Their nation had never lost a war. In addition, Japan's fighting men held ingrained beliefs that to surrender was to disgrace one's self and one's nation. So deeply were these thoughts held that even after both bombs had been detonated and the entry of the Soviet Union into the war, the Japanese military still opposed surrender bitterly, and would prefer death than dishonorable capitulation. With a foe with a mind set such as this, only two options could be considered by the United States government. One being the use of atomic weapons and the other being the invasion of mainland Japan. According to Truman's top military advisors, an invasion of mainland Japan would cost and an estimated 500,000 American lives, not to mention over a million Japanese deaths. Truman wrote years later, We estimated that if we should be forced to carry this [invasion] plan to its conclusion, the major fighting would not end until the latter part of 1946, at the earliest. I was informed that such operations might be expected to cost over a million casualties, in American forces alone. Such an operation would also require the use of European theater American troops departure from Europe to Japan, to an aid in the assault. With the largest invasion force ever assembled, comprising of approximately 2,000,000 troops. (Far larger than the Normandy invasion) According to Major General Masakazu Amanu, the chief of the Operations Section at Japanese Imperial Headquarters, We were absolutely sure of victory over an allied offensive. It was the first and the only battle in which the main strength of the air, land and sea forces were to be joined. The geographical advantages of the homeland were to be utilized to the highest degree, the enemy was to be crushed, and we were confident that the battle would prove to be the turning point in political maneuvering. To repel the invasion, Japan had almost two million troops under arms, while millions of civilians were being trained to kill invaders, with guns, explosive charges strapped to their bodies, and even bamboo spears. Thousands of planes and midget submarines were being produced by the Japanese for suicide missions. Fleet Admiral Nimitz once wrote in a memo to Admiral King regarding the possible invasion of Japan that, We must be prepared to accept heavy casualties whenever we invade Japan.


Truman had a tough call, but in the end it was the right one. However many civilians died, it was far-FAR fewer than how many were being prepared to die.

But that isn't what made Truman such a great man. He went before Congress and asked that everyone help to rebuild Japan! He didn't ask for revenge or anything like that. I could go on,.. but you get the point and I've written enough.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby Frigidus on Mon May 18, 2009 3:33 pm

thegreekdog wrote:What about fire bombing an industrial city in Germany?


Even though there is a military objective involved, fire bombing is inherently chaotic. It should not be used on something like a city, even if the entire war is at stake.

thegreekdog wrote:What about killing German families in retribution for the invasion of the Soviet Union or France or Greece?


This one doesn't even have a military justification, straight out criminal.

thegreekdog wrote:Furthermore, is there any justification for killing civilians in war time? Say, for example, saving the lives of 200,000 soldiers? What if you were one of those soldiers? What if you were a relative of one of those soldiers?


One of the reasons soldiers deserve respect is because they are willing to put their life on the line for the sake of their country. When you join the military you put the lives of your fellow citizens before your own. Those not in the military were unwilling to make that choice. If it is possible to have rules of war (and I think there is), then one must respect the decisions of both soldiers and civilians, whether in your country or another. As someone who has had friends and family in the military, I still stand by this. I can't speak for soldiers themselves, naturally.

If we're talking extremes, then let's talk absolute extremes. Would I, for instance, choose to avoid targeting one innocent civilian when the lives of every soldier in the US military was at stake? No. Would I refuse to target one civilian even if his death were to end a war? No. I'm not so naive as to think that war can be dealt with in black and whites. I won't draw a line in the sand, saying 100 soldiers is worth 1 non-combatant or anything of that sort. But, for the most part, one must choose to fight with those who are willing to defend their country over slaughtering innocents for your own sake.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby thegreekdog on Mon May 18, 2009 3:42 pm

Frigidus, I agree with your last paragraph. And I believe that this was Truman's justification for what he ordered. He wanted to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. I'm not sure what the number is, but I think estimates had some 200,000 soldiers dying if we invaded Osaka. So, Truman decided to use atomics so that he could save US soldiers' lives. That's why I think if you try Truman posthumously, you need to try a whole lot of other people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby Frigidus on Mon May 18, 2009 3:55 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Frigidus wrote:That said, it was people like Jackson that ensured at least a draw in the War of 1812, the government sure as hell didn't have a handle on it

I'll give you that.... but it's not enough to make him nearly the best.


Oh, no chance. He wasn't even president when he did that, so it shouldn't even be in consideration.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Trumans "actions" saved the lives of millions soldiers and civilians! Millions! And finally ended the bloodiest conflict ever!


an invasion of mainland Japan would cost and an estimated 500,000 American lives


Truman wrote:I was informed that such operations might be expected to cost over a million casualties, in American forces alone. Such an operation would also require the use of European theater American troops departure from Europe to Japan, to an aid in the assault. With the largest invasion force ever assembled, comprising of approximately 2,000,000 troops. (Far larger than the Normandy invasion) According to Major General Masakazu Amanu, the chief of the Operations Section at Japanese Imperial Headquarters, We were absolutely sure of victory over an allied offensive. It was the first and the only battle in which the main strength of the air, land and sea forces were to be joined. The geographical advantages of the homeland were to be utilized to the highest degree, the enemy was to be crushed, and we were confident that the battle would prove to be the turning point in political maneuvering. To repel the invasion, Japan had almost two million troops under arms, while millions of civilians were being trained to kill invaders, with guns, explosive charges strapped to their bodies, and even bamboo spears. Thousands of planes and midget submarines were being produced by the Japanese for suicide missions. Fleet Admiral Nimitz once wrote in a memo to Admiral King regarding the possible invasion of Japan that, We must be prepared to accept heavy casualties whenever we invade Japan.


Truman had an undoubtedly difficult decision to make. I also don't know what sort of figures his staff were throwing at him. That said, he did not drop the bomb for the sake of Japanese civilians. He did it for the sake of his soldiers, and while the desire to minimize casualties is understandable, his methods are not. Is it OK to use the atom bomb whenever it would be sure to guarantee victory?

millions of civilians were being trained to kill invaders, with guns, explosive charges strapped to their bodies, and even bamboo spears


I, naturally, wouldn't label those using these sorts of tactics as "civilians".

Juan_Bottom wrote:There was no agreement or treaty prohibiting atomics, and he even warned the Japs that it was coming both times. Not to point fingers-but it was the Japanese that started killing civilians (taking it so far as to have slaves and sex slaves) long before the Americans.


Indeed, the Japanese, frankly, did much worse than us. They were monsters.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Jackson's actions had nothing to do with saving lives. It was all about power.
Jackson=Genocide


While I agree that he is guilty of genocide, I think he is guilty of it out of negligence, not intent. He wanted to kick the Cherokee out of the country (the way he treated the natives even before the Trail of Tears was terrible, of course, and his motives were hardly pure), but he wasn't trying to kill them. The system that he set up to do this, though, was one in which many, many deaths were inevitable. That is what was inexcusable.

Juan_Bottom wrote:But that isn't what made Truman such a great man. He went before Congress and asked that everyone help to rebuild Japan! He didn't ask for revenge or anything like that. I could go on,.. but you get the point and I've written enough.


I don't feel his post-war policies were bad ones (though not all of them worked out as planned). His choice to drop the bombs aside, I feel that he was a good president. But, in the same way that Jackson's presidency was tarnished by the Trail of Tears, I see Truman in a similar light.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby thegreekdog on Mon May 18, 2009 3:59 pm

Frigidus wrote:Is it OK to use the atom bomb whenever it would be sure to guarantee victory?


But that's not the question. That's not what Truman's decision was. Truman's decision was, do I sacrifice 200,000 to 500,000 Americans or do I kill X number of Japanese civilians.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby Frigidus on Mon May 18, 2009 4:04 pm

Just for the record, I'm aware my views are quite extreme regarding this. The atmosphere created by 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan, discussions of whether torture is OK (and what kinds), and the difficulty of defining a combatant have forced me to reconsider the way I've viewed many of our past actions in a more critical light. I won't pretend the decision to invade Japan or drop the bomb was an easy one, but it is the president's job to make difficult decisions. It is my opinion that Truman made the wrong one. I certainly wouldn't say he should be tried posthumously (that was Jackson), as it is in a gray area. Despite that, I won't excuse someone for what they do (or order in this case) just because we're at war. I stand by my statement that Jackson and Truman were, at the very least, comparable.

I'll post more on this later, but for now I have a train to catch.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby thegreekdog on Mon May 18, 2009 4:07 pm

Frigidus wrote:Just for the record, I'm aware my views are quite extreme regarding this. The atmosphere created by 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan, discussions of whether torture is OK (and what kinds), and the difficulty of defining a combatant have forced me to reconsider the way I've viewed many of our past actions in a more critical light. I won't pretend the decision to invade Japan or drop the bomb was an easy one, but it is the president's job to make difficult decisions. It is my opinion that Truman made the wrong one. I certainly wouldn't say he should be tried posthumously (that was Jackson), as it is in a gray area. Despite that, I won't excuse someone for what they do (or order in this case) just because we're at war. I stand by my statement that Jackson and Truman were, at the very least, comparable.

I'll post more on this later, but for now I have a train to catch.


Actually, your views are not extreme at all. This was discussed in my World War Two class that I took in college (back in 2000... I'm dating myself). I believe there were protests at the Smithsonian regarding this. Undoubtedly, this was a horrible decision and I'm not going to second-guess Truman because we frankly don't know what the alternative actually would have been. We can only speculate.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon May 18, 2009 4:25 pm

I'm pretty sure his views are quite extreme on this one.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby neanderpaul14 on Mon May 18, 2009 4:47 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Frigidus wrote:Is it OK to use the atom bomb whenever it would be sure to guarantee victory?


But that's not the question. That's not what Truman's decision was. Truman's decision was, do I sacrifice 200,000 to 500,000 Americans or do I kill X number of Japanese civilians.


Actually, as absurd as this sounds, the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the subsequent quick end of the war probably saved many more Japanese civilians than they actually killed.

Take a look at what happened to the civilian population on Okinawa, 1/3 of the population dead. These resulting from disease, being caught amidst the fighting, and mass suicide, among other reasons including intentionally being killed by Japanese soldiers. Now imagine this on a much grander scale had we been forced to invade mainland Japan.

The decision of Truman's to drop these 2 bombs as horrendous as it may seem more than likely saved many more Japanese lives than American ones.
Image
High score: 2724
/#163 on scoreboard/COLONEL
User avatar
Cook neanderpaul14
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: "Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy if possible." - Thomas J. Jackson

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon May 18, 2009 5:34 pm

thegreekdog wrote:200,000 to 500,000 Americans or do I kill X number of Japanese civilians.

That's just on Invasion day. And he would need about 2 million men to invade... we would have needed the Europeans, who were definitly tired of fighting. Remember what happened to Churchill?

X = about 100,000 BTW.

Frigidus wrote:Is it OK to use the atom bomb whenever it would be sure to guarantee victory?


We had actually already won the war by the time we dropped the bomb. The goal wasn't to ensure victory, it was to get Japan to surrender.

neanderpaul14 wrote:Actually, as absurd as this sounds, the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the subsequent quick end of the war probably saved many more Japanese civilians than they actually killed.

And even if the Americans should emerge victorious after an inevitably fierce and bloody campaign which would prolong the war an estimated year and a half, total casualties and sheer destructiveness would have far exceeded those of the two atomic bombs. The Japanese had developed a new fighting code for the invasion they expected from the Americans. They were instructed to deny aid to injured comrades, restrict retreat by making it punishable by death and converting all units including medical and logistical units into fighting units. It also called for injured soldiers and patients to participate in the battle, without any attention to one's self. Propaganda was sent all over Japan preaching these rules and calling for every member of society to die for their native soil. One Senior Military Officer advocated involuntary sacrifices: Due to the nationwide food shortage and the imminent invasion of the home islands, it will be necessary to kill all the infirm old people, the very young, and the sick. We cannot allow Japan to perish because of them. According to the slogans that spread through Japan, every man, woman and child was expected to fight to the death. People were told to sing a song entitled The Honorable Death of A Hundred Million. It was even proposed that with the invasion, the invaders may use Japanese civilians as cover, the Japanese fighters were given strict instructions to kill the enemy, with hostages or not, and plow down their own if it meant enemy casualties. The Japanese had even began to mass produce manned torpedoes and submarines, including 6,000 kamikaze planes. Pilots as young as thirteen were being trained to kill themselves in the name of the emperor. How could the invasion of such a fanatical Japan, have been successful without the loss of countless lives? Upon the conclusion of the Second World War, much of the former enemies to the allies were divided into sections, one section controlled by the Soviets the other by the United States. Should the Soviets have been involved in the final defeat of Japan -which would have been necessary if the bombs hadn't been dropped- then the Soviets would have demanded a Soviet Zone in Japan, just as they did in Germany, Korea and several other Asian nations. With the Soviets in control of a good portion of Japan, Japanese culture would have been compromised indefinitely. It would have surely delayed Japan's recovery, with the Soviets policy of massive reparations, and the possibility of a resurgent Japan may have arisen. Without the United States extensive aid after the War, future may have repeated herself as she did with Germany after the first world war. The atomic bombs allowed the Americans to end the war by themselves, without any Soviet intervention, and because of that Japanese culture as well as the security of Japan's former foes was protected. There are those in Japan that felt no resentment towards the United States for their usage of the atomic bomb on Japan. A fighting man's view of the atomic bomb came from Captain Mitsuo Fuchida, who had led the air attack on Pearl Harbor and who had been one of those investigating Hiroshima the day after the disaster. In his opinion, once a nation embarked upon war, it was obligated to go all out. To possess a weapon that could ensure victory and not use it would be to break faith with a nation's people as well as to disgrace the memory of lost comrades and make their sacrifices meaningless. What must be remembered is that during the Second World War, both Nazi Germany and expansionist Japan tried to perfect the atomic weapon, it would be absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Japan and Germany wouldn't have used it if they got it first. Americans were still dying, a solution arose that would end the loss of all American lives and end the war quickly. They seized it. Captain Fuchida also added that given the culture of his nation, Japan would inevitably have used the atomic bomb over the United States if it meant their assured surrender.


I liked the part about the "Soviet Zone" the best. Even better than hospital patients with machine guns. Or 13 year old Kamikazes.



THE BEST ANDREW JACKSON TIDBITS EVER!

Andrew Jackson, Jr. (1808-65)
A nephew of Rachel was born in 1808 although other dates are sometimes given. He was adopted by the Jackson in early 1809 and named after the furure president. The Jacksons in 1809 adopted a nephew and named him Andrew Jackson, Jr. Andy had a twin that was raised by their parents. When Rachel died, Andy spent time both at the Hermitage and Washington with his adopted father and with his own parents and brother in Philadelphia. He married Sarah Yorke in 1831. He was not a good businessman. He participated in risky schemes and lost large sums of money. When his adooted father died, Andy sold the Hermitage to pay his debts. He was wounded in a hunting accident and died of lockjaw in 1865.


Andrew Jackson Donelson
The Jacksons also reared other nephews for various periods. One particularly imporant nephew was Andrew Jackson Donelson. He married his cousin Emily, one of Rachel's favorite nieces. They had four children, three born at the White House. Frail throughout her lifetime, Emily died of tuberculosis in 1836.


Indian boy
The Jacksons also reared an Indinan boy. An Indian brought an infant to Jackson after his parenrts were killed in one of Jackson's many, often brutal, Indian campaigns. He was told to kill their infant as his parents had been killed. Jackson refused and sent the boy home with instructions to Rachel to raise him as a member of the family. Jackson referred to him as his son.

That's right. He raised three sons. ANdrew, Andrew, and Indian Boy. Great name choice president Jackson.

And this:
http://www.cracked.com/article_15895_5- ... -time.html
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon May 18, 2009 5:40 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Frigidus wrote:Just for the record, I'm aware my views are quite extreme regarding this. The atmosphere created by 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan, discussions of whether torture is OK (and what kinds), and the difficulty of defining a combatant have forced me to reconsider the way I've viewed many of our past actions in a more critical light. I won't pretend the decision to invade Japan or drop the bomb was an easy one, but it is the president's job to make difficult decisions. It is my opinion that Truman made the wrong one. I certainly wouldn't say he should be tried posthumously (that was Jackson), as it is in a gray area. Despite that, I won't excuse someone for what they do (or order in this case) just because we're at war. I stand by my statement that Jackson and Truman were, at the very least, comparable.

I'll post more on this later, but for now I have a train to catch.


Actually, your views are not extreme at all. This was discussed in my World War Two class that I took in college (back in 2000... I'm dating myself). I believe there were protests at the Smithsonian regarding this. Undoubtedly, this was a horrible decision and I'm not going to second-guess Truman because we frankly don't know what the alternative actually would have been. We can only speculate.



I have to say that those who object are looking at Japan as it is today and not as it was. If you want to judge the "righteousness" of Japan, you need to talk to the Koreans and the Chinese.

No one is squeeky clean in a war, any war. However, we need to judge it by the times and not today.

And as for the 200,000 Americans versus 500,000 Japanese... estimates I have heard from experts on the matter give a death toll in the millions on BOTH sides. Let's not forget, we were then fighting a living god. People will do a lot for a god.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: who was the greatest american president

Postby JJM on Mon May 18, 2009 8:22 pm

JJM wrote:That crooks doing better than Truman. I say Truman was absolutle magnificent and here they put a crook before him.
The bombing had to be done. I admire Truman for being brave enough to fire McArthur.
Corporal JJM
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:49 pm
Location: North Dakota

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DirtyDishSoap